San Diego State University relied on at least three consultants to put together its “Mission Valley Plan” for a campus expansion at the old Qualcomm Stadium site, but the university is refusing to release any details about what those consultants did or how much they were paid.

Carrier Johnson + CULTURE as consultant for architecture, strategy and site renderings

JMI Realty as real estate investment strategy consultant

Populous and JMI Sports as a consultant on stadium design plans

None of the consultants are attorneys, but the university cited attorney-client privilege among other reasons for declining to release any documentation of the work done by the firms — including whether they were paid, how much and by whom. The university also declined to release information or documentation from any other firms that might be engaged in its plans for Mission Valley.

The lack of openness comes at a time when voters are being asked to approve the SDSU West ballot measure, which would redevelop the city’s football stadium site in Mission Valley, abandoned by the San Diego Chargers early last year in favor of Los Angeles.

If voters approve, SDSU would purchase 130 or so acres of city-owned land and convert the property into a western campus annex with classrooms, condominiums, office and retail space along with a smaller stadium for the SDSU Aztecs.

A rival makeover project called SoccerCity would develop many of the same amenities on 250 or so acres of the same the publicly owned stadium site, with an eye toward professional soccer. Both proposals are expected to be on the ballot in November.

“Since the early 2000s, it has been San Diego State University’s desire to purchase the stadium site in Mission Valley,” says the fact sheet. “It is the only logical location for SDSU’s planned and necessary growth. SDSU believes that any development on the Mission Valley site should serve higher education, the public good and the community’s goals and aspirations.”

In early May, The San Diego Union-Tribune filed a California Public Records Act request for documents regarding “all consultants retained by SDSU to perform work/ services related to the SDSU West project, and the amounts paid to each — by month — since January 2017.”

University officials said they identified an undisclosed amount of documents in response to the request, but they are withholding them from public inspection under a provision of state law that exempts legal work from disclosure.

“SDSU has conducted a reasonable search for these records and has concluded that all records requested are protected under attorney-client privilege,” Dominoe Franco of the university’s Risk & Emergency Management department wrote in an email. “Therefore there are no responsive documents to this request.”

As the newspaper continued to seek clarity as to why the records were being withheld, another answer was offered last week.

“Those documents are not in the possession of the university and therefore the university has no such documents in response to your request,” said La Monica Everett-Haynes, director of media relations. “And even if the university did have such documents, they would also be exempt from disclosure under recognized privilege.”

Officials note that the SDSU West project is not sponsored by the university but by Friends of SDSU, a group of well-known alumni and other supporters. The university has nevertheless leased billboards and conducted other marketing efforts to promote its historical and economic contributions to the community, at a time when voters are considering the merits of the expansion.

Public-records lawyers and open-government advocates say SDSU does not appear to be on firm legal footing when it comes to withholding documents regarding work or services provided by non-lawyers.

Terry Francke, general counsel of the Sacramento-area nonprofit Californians Aware, reviewed the multitude of communications between the university and the Union-Tribune regarding the request for records related to the proposed development.

He said SDSU appears to have narrowed its definition of public documents. Even if SDSU West paid for the services, any work product copied to university officials is subject to release under the Public Records Act, Francke said.

“Is she saying that the university has no copies of such documents? That’s hard to believe,” he said. “It’s equally hard to believe that all the responsive documents would have been privileged attorney-client communications.”

University officials draw a distinction between SDSU West and an internal study they created called the SDSU Mission Valley Plan, a redevelopment blueprint they said dates to the early 2000s.

“SDSU West is a proposed ballot initiative sponsored by Friends of SDSU,” a university fact sheet states. “‘SDSU Mission Valley’ is the university’s vision and plan, should SDSU have an opportunity to purchase and develop the land.”

Both the SDSU West and SoccerCity proposals qualified for the November ballot by collecting enough signatures from registered voters. As a result, the City Council is required to place both measures on the November ballot next month or in August.

If they each win majority support from voters in November, the measure with the most ballots wins. But even a victory at the ballot box may not guarantee the stadium grounds will be redeveloped soon.

City Attorney Mara Elliott last month asked a San Diego Superior Court judge to review each of the initiatives to determine whether they meet legal requirements.

CAPTION

As a sexual-misconduct case deepens within the San Diego Sheriff’s Department -- a 10th women has come forward with a legal claim against the county -- three alleged victims are raising questions about why the accused lawman has not been arrested.

As a sexual-misconduct case deepens within the San Diego Sheriff’s Department -- a 10th women has come forward with a legal claim against the county -- three alleged victims are raising questions about why the accused lawman has not been arrested.

CAPTION

The City of San Diego helped build a $2-million public restroom, after years of rejecting calls for toilets to address unsanitary conditions downtown.

The City of San Diego helped build a $2-million public restroom, after years of rejecting calls for toilets to address unsanitary conditions downtown.